BigRob wrote:As for the salary cap exemption debate - personally I think that 1 per team, 50% of wage exempt from the salary cap would be a good way to go. But would have to be first pro RL contract to stop any shenanigans that would doubtless ensue otherwise.
I think it would encourage teams to go for Union players who sadly are more well known in the media than our own players. I don't think there would be much "damage" to youth development since it would be giving the game a higher profile.

Offside Monkey wrote:There seems to be two schools of thought on the salary cap:

1. Its there to stifle clubs in order to make an even competetion and allow poor clubs to compete with the well off, thus essentially penalising said big clubs. Folk with this opinion constantly look for ways around the cap, examptions, or just things to blame on it.

2. (and this is mine) If there wasn't a salary cap then the combination of running a sports club as a successful business with the general lack of money in sport would mean, sooner or later (probably), every club would end up oversreached financially and looking at insolvency, thus causing an awful lot more damage to the sport than losing Chris Ashton to RU.

Guiseley_Rhino wrote:Who?

Or is it just to support the current salary cap debate going on over in the nrl.

BrisbaneRhino wrote:The problem is that 'flexibility' is normally a byword for 'no rules at all'. As with quota rules. Once you start down the path of exemptions for one thing, its hard to argue against others - until you end up with a set of rules in name only.

Wire_Yed wrote:As regards kids develpment would it be possible to set up fictious(as of yet) youth teams, run by the Rfl partly funded by all clubs. These kids would then be trained up by top coaches with no professional affiliation to any of the clubs. Then when they reach an age they go into a draft system similar to NFL. Call it a school of rugby if you will, and all the best candidates get a 'work' placement. Kids stay with this rugby school until they are 18. Surely a better way of keeping the kids in the game ?

Barnacle Bill wrote:I don't see why this is a dead end. The good players (that want to continue their development) will be signed up at clubs that run under 18's the not so good ones won't, in any event all will have gained from the availability of another scholarship programme.

SmokeyTA wrote:two problems with this,

1) many many players make their first team debut before 18

2) i believe competition in youth development drives innovation and evolution

Wire_Yed wrote:1) 18 is only an upper limit, they could be up for draft at 16

2) you still have competiton, you go into a team based on where you were born , you have pre set areas (similar to town teams or schools boundaries you already have), with strict boundaries, these teams then play each other, this is also the basis of how players get picked, you could have 6 age groups 11's 12's 13's 14's 15's and 16-18.

When they turn 16 they are eligable for draft, the bottom clubs getting 1st pick.